Dela Cruz, Ma. Angeli A.

MT 1–D Readings in Philippine History January 20, 2020

1.How credible is the account explaining the site of the first mass?
The first mass in the Philippines was held on March 31, 1521 by Fr. Pedro de
Valderrama OSA, but where the place it really happened is still not totally confirmed.
Thus, the account explaining the site of the first mass is somehow credible since it can
give the correct some details, but not everything like where the first mass was really held.

2. Cite evidences that would suggest where the first mass really happened?
Controversies appeared about where the first Christian mass really happened.
Sonia Zaide claimed that it was in Masao, Butuan. She said that her claims was based
on the diary of Antonio Pigafetta. In addition to this, during 1872 the monument to
commemorate the first mass was built there. But since those evidences are still not
enough, there are many people tried to find more evidences proving that it was happened
in Butuan and they come up to another four proofs: First is the name of the place which
is Masao. Second is the route from Homonhon. Third is latitude position of the place, and
the fourth is its geographical features. However, Jaime de Veyra said the first mass was
in Limasawa not in Masao. Also, Pablo Pastells stated that by the footnote of to Francisco
Collin's Labor Evangelica, Magellan did not go to Masao, instead he came from Limasawa
to Cebu and even James Robertson agreed to it. The evidences that first mass was
actually happened in Limasawa were presented. The first evidence is the Francisco Albo's
logbook. Second is the Antonio Pigafetta's accounts that contains his testimony regarding
the voyage route and map, the two native kings, the seven days at Mazaua, and the
argument from omission. Last is the confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition.

3. What is your stand?

Due to the controversies, I also became confuse of which one is correct because
the other claim also provide some evidences that show their statement is right, but as I
compare it to the Limasaiwa's evidences, I still believe that the first mass really happened
in Limasawa. It is because I find its evidences more convincing and it will not be taught
to us during our elementary days if they are not find it more credible than the other claim,
though not surely correct.
Dela Cruz, Ma. Angeli A. MT 1–D Readings in Philippine History January 20, 2020

1.How credible is the account explaining the site of the first mass?
2. Cite evidences that would suggest where the first mass really happened?
3. What is your stand?

The first mass in the Philippines was held on March 31, 1521 by Fr. Pedro de
Valderrama OSA, but where the place it really happened is still not totally confirmed.
Thus, the account explaining the site of the first mass is somehow credible since it can
give the correct some details, but not everything like where the first mass was really held.
Controversies appeared about where the first Christian mass really happened.
Sonia Zaide claimed that it was in Masao, Butuan. She said that her claims was based
on the diary of Antonio Pigafetta. In addition to this, during 1872 the monument to
commemorate the first mass was built there. But since those evidences are still not
enough, there are many people tried to find more evidences proving that it was happened
in Butuan and they come up to another four proofs: First is the name of the place which
is Masao. Second is the route from Homonhon. Third is latitude position of the place, and
the fourth is its geographical features. However, Jaime de Veyra said the first mass was
in Limasawa not in Masao. Also, Pablo Pastells stated that by the footnote of to Francisco
Collin's Labor Evangelica, Magellan did not go to Masao, instead he came from Limasawa
to Cebu and even James Robertson agreed to it. The evidences that first mass was
actually happened in Limasawa were presented. The first evidence is the Francisco Albo's
logbook. Second is the Antonio Pigafetta's accounts that contains his testimony regarding
the voyage route and map, the two native kings, the seven days at Mazaua, and the
argument from omission. Last is the confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition.
Due to the controversies, I also became confuse of which one is correct because
the other claim also provide some evidences that show their statement is right, but as I
compare it to the Limasaiwa's evidences, I still believe that the first mass really happened
in Limasawa. It is because I find its evidences more convincing and it will not be taught
to us during our elementary days if they are not find it more credible than the other claim,
though not surely correct.